User talk:Rothorpe/Archive 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archives 1, 2,3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

Franciscan[edit]

I've just begun reading the article on Franciscan and I have a question for you:

In the third paragraph in the section "The beginning of the brotherhood" (not far from the beginning of the article), (next to the image of the old document), the word "church" appears twice capitalized and then once in lower case. I wondered whether they should all be capitalized, all be lower case, or remain as they are. By "church" with a capital "C", I guess the writer meant the institution of the Roman Catholic church as a whole, but I don't know (a) whether the capital letter is necessary, and (b), if it is correct for the first two instances, whether the third instance ought to be capitalized, too.

Also, does the first sentence in the next section, "The last years of Francis", make sense to you?CorinneSD (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

They should all be in lower case. I imagine one reason to capitalise would be to distinguish organisation from an actual building, but there can be no confusion there.
That sentence is a shocker, but it might be improved if 'operated' were changed to 'effected'. Rothorpe (talk) 02:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I made a few edits (didn't get to the "c" in church yet). In the section "The last years of Francis" (or something like that), in the middle of the paragraph, is the following sentence:
"Francis resigned the day-to-day running of the Order into the hands of others but retained the power to shape the Order's legislation, writing a Rule in 1221 which he revised and had approved in 1223."
I'm not crazy about the word "resigned" here. Besides the three "r" verbs --"resigned", "retained", and "revised", I just think "resigned...into the hands of" is not quite right. I was thinking about what verb would be just the right verb. I was thinking of "yielded...to", "passed...to", and "turned over". What do you think? If you like "turned over", what should follow after "legislation" --"turned over....into the hands of others", "turned over...to others"?CorinneSD (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, tricky. How about 'Francis handed the day-to-day running of the order over to others, while retaining the power...'? Rothorpe (talk) 12:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Sounds all right. I'm just having trouble picturing an elderly friar "handing over" the reins to others. I guess it is possible. I'll work on it later. I just wanted to let you know about another long, unwieldy sentence from this article that I included in a comment on the article's Talk page. You're welcome to take a stab at that one, too.CorinneSD (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
No mention of reins, just the running. Rothorpe (talk) 18:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
That sentence is a bit clunky, it's true, but it sounds authoritative, so I think I'll just leave it. Rothorpe (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Scott Nearing[edit]

I wonder if you would mind looking at the latest edits to the article on Scott Nearing? An editor added quite a bit. The only reference I could see was an on-line source, and I cannot judge whether that is a suitable source, or, considering the amount that was added, sufficient reference. However, I saw several problems with the material added:

  • Who says his death was "pure"?
  • If the notion that his death was a suicide was a myth, how can it later in the paragraph be called a suicide (with three additional adjectives, too)?
  • There was at least one punctuation/spacing problem.

Maybe you'll see other problems.CorinneSD (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I can't find the source you mention. Only a matter of time before someone removes it all as speculation, I reckon. Rothorpe (talk) 12:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I checked. It is in the article Scott Nearing. I was speaking of all the edits made by Sttepflint on January 14. There is one additional edit by him/her today. Besides the issues mentioned above, they do not seem well-written.CorinneSD (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's the article we're discussing. But where? Anyway, as far as I'm concerned it's completely unsourced and should be reverted.Rothorpe (talk) 18:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for looking. When you say, "but where?", I assume you were not able to find the specific problems I mentioned above, but I hope you were able to see the last six or seven edits in the Revision History by "Sttepflint". The specific edits I mentioned above were a few steps back from the last one.
I have no problem reverting the edits, but how would I go about reverting all of them? There are about six or seven steps, or groups, of edits. Do I work backward and revert each one step by step? In other cases like this, I think I tried reverting the first of the series of edits, only to get a message that I can't, due to "intermediate edits" and would have to make the changes manually. There must be a way to revert all of them in one step.CorinneSD (talk) 00:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, yes, I missed the reference for some reason. To revert all the edits, click on the last good version, of 28 Dec, click edit, then save. Put an edit summary to the effect that the edits are unsourced, or you may wish to be a little less brusque. That's if you agree with me that they are unsourced, of course. Rothorpe (talk) 00:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I hope wasn't too brusque.CorinneSD (talk) 00:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Excellent! Now we'll see what happens. Rothorpe (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
The editor put some of his/her words back in. I don't understand the necessity for "shrouded in myth". This was only twenty years ago or so. (My mother was a good friend of the Nearings.) I also don't understand the necessity for the second sentence. The first sentence does not say that his death was not painful. Why wouldn't his wife leave out some painful details from her memoir? That doesn't mean her account was not accurate. What do you suggest?CorinneSD (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Shrouded in myth it clearly was not. I'll support you in a revert.Rothorpe (talk) 23:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Saint Thomas Christians[edit]

Would you mind reading a comment I posted on my Talk page regarding Saint Thomas Christians? I still feel unsure when it comes to judging quantities of text added to an article, and, as always, I value your opinion.CorinneSD (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

John of Reading is watching your page, is he? If not, he won't see your comments.
Often you will find that there have been corrections made that don't begin to address what is actually needed. Best to be bold, and not worry about what other editors have been doing. Not that there is any harm in asking what he thinks, but he may not have an opinion... Rothorpe (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I had posted a note on his Talk page asking him to read my comment regarding this article on my Talk page. I'll wait a day or two to see if he responds before doing anything. I would still like to hear your opinion on the added material and the idea of reverting.CorinneSD (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Right, I'll have a look. Rothorpe (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
No, I wouldn't revert anything until you've had a chat with him.Rothorpe (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
John of Reading replied. He added a tag to the "Social Mobility" section. I am puzzled, because I thought I had read the whole article a few weeks ago and I know I would never have left the text in the "Social Mobility" section the way it is. I don't even remember reading it, but I can't find when that material was added.
Shall I just take on the challenge of putting it into Standard English?CorinneSD (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
It was added on 11 Jan, a week after your last edit. Shall I take on the challenge of reading it? A couple of sentences was enough. Best of luck if you decide to grapple with it! Rothorpe (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Laodicea on the Lycus[edit]

Would you mind taking a look at the latest edit to Laodicea on the Lycus? The edit summary says "More precise", but to me, rather than being more precise, the language is now less precise, or at least less clear. It seems that the reference was changed, too. I don't know what was wrong with the way it was. What do you think?CorinneSD (talk) 17:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you. Rothorpe (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

A pleasure to meet your edits![edit]

Greetings: Thank you for constantly fixing spelling and punctuation! All the towns of Northern California in Del Norte,Humboldt and Trinity Counties would only be improved by your review any time. I am trying to put in facts and I am not an expert punctuator. I would greatly appreciate a review of Ferndale, California in particular, and any other the other towns in the region for which you may have time. With best wishes! Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words! I closed a couple of spaces before references in Ferndale, but otherwise it looked fine, and checked the others for the same problem, but all OK. Rothorpe (talk) 01:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

W. H. Auden[edit]

I've been wondering about the following sentence which appears in the second paragraph of the lead/lede of the article on W. H. Auden:

"His early poems, written in the late 1920s and early 1930s, alternated between telegraphic modern styles and fluent traditional ones, were written in an intense and dramatic tone, and established his reputation as a left-wing political poet and prophet."

I know that grammatically it is all right, but stylistically I feel that something is wrong. Perhaps it is "written in" twice; perhaps it is the number of phrases. I thought it might sound better if split into two sentences after "ones":

"...fluent traditional ones. They were written in an intense...."

But I know that a lot of literary types probably helped write this article and I hesitate to make any changes. I just thought I'd ask you what you thought.CorinneSD (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't hesitate in making the change you suggest! Rothorpe(talk) 13:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Indeed I shall add a word of encouragement here: I long ago stopped bothering to review your changes to articles. It was boring, because they were always correct. And who says that literary types are good at these things?Rothorpe (talk) 13:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Wow! What a compliment. Thank you. Thank you also for your encouragement.
I made a lot of changes to the lead/lede. What do you think of them? (If I can persuade you to read them.)CorinneSD (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
You have persuaded me. They are very good. Rothorpe (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh, good! Thank you.
By the way, if you have nothing else to do, you might be interested in the exchange regarding ENGVAR on the Talk page of Anomalocaris, which also spilled over onto my Talk page, specifically regarding the use of "whilst".
Did you see my note above, re Scott Nearing? CorinneSD(talk) 22:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I was looking at your edits to W. H. Auden and, of course, they are all fine. I look at them out of curiosity and because I know I will either learn something or see what I missed when I read the article. I saw the following sentences:
"In 1928 he wrote his first dramatic work, Paid on Both Sides, subtitled "A Charade", which combined style and content from the Icelandicsagas with jokes from English school life. This mixture of tragedy and farce, with a dream play-within-the-play, introduced the mixed styles and content of much of his later work."
My question is, is "a...play-within-the-play" correct? I would have used "play-within-a-play", but I wonder whether the version with "the" is a standard, accepted expression and the version with "a" is perhaps not? Can you enlighten me?CorinneSD (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, I've only ever heard the 'a' version. Rothorpe(talk) 23:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
O.K. Thanks.CorinneSD (talk) 00:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Pseudonym[edit]

What do you think of the latest edit to Pseudonym? I feel bad for this editor who has obviously made a good faith edit, but it seems to me that it is unsourced and there are some grammatical problems. What would you do?CorinneSD (talk) 00:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

It's been reverted, with a very kind and appropriate edit summary.Rothorpe (talk) 13:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Claudio Abbado[edit]

It's for deaths where there's an element of uncertainty. This does not apply to Abbado, as far as I know. Rothorpe (talk) 13:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for butting in, but I was looking at the article to see how recently he had died in order to compare that date with the date the tag was added, thinking that perhaps the tag had been added some time ago, but not only did I not find the tag, I noticed that, in the first line of the lead/lede, his death date is given as "20 January 2014" which means that he died yesterday. (I didn't even realize that today is the 21st.) Perhaps that tag is a standard tag for articles about people who have just died, anticipating that more details will emerge.CorinneSD (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
That's right, where more details would be of interest. But that's not the case with dear old Claudio. Rothorpe (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Aram Khachaturian[edit]

Was the latest edit to Aram Khachaturian all right? Normally, I would agree that "to" is more correct, but in this case I am not sure. (I guess I should be sure.)CorinneSD (talk) 22:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I prefer 'to'. Rothorpe (talk) 00:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Laodicea on the Lycus[edit]

I need your thoughts on something. About four days ago I made an edit or two toLaodicea on the Lycus. Another editor, Esoglu or something, reverted it (I think). I engaged him/her in a discussion on his/her talk page which he/she then transferred to the talk page of the article. If you read the exchange carefully, you will see that I admitted my own confusion (twice, on two different points), but finally generally approved of his/her new changes except for one sentence. I then suggested two alternate re-writes of that sentence (in each, forming two sentences out of one). Now I just saw a lot of edits to the article by this editor. He/She may be knowledgeable about titular sees and bishoprics but I do not think knows how to write clearly and succinctly. I don't know what to do next.

Before I left my original comment on his/her talk page, I skimmed a lot of other comments to him/her from other editors, many complaining about his/her edits and over-mention of titular sees and the like. Then, about a day or two ago, I noticed he/she had not simply archived those discussions but blanked his Talk page (so they are probably there to be seen in Revision History).

The exchanges and edits will take some time to review, if you want to delve into it. I need your opinions and thoughts on this.CorinneSD(talk) 23:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your frustration, and sympathise, but this is all too much for me at the moment. The best I can offer is to watch it, and pay close attention from now on. Perhaps ask me precise questions, to give me a proper entry point.Rothorpe (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Are you following the discussion on the Talk page of the article? Now I have to read the Epistle to the Colossians in order to answer my own questions. I thought that editor was knowledgeable and that we could work together to produce the best paragraph possible, but now I see I have to do the research myself, and I will.CorinneSD (talk) 00:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I have been following that, and will continue to do so. Happy reading!?!Rothorpe (talk) 00:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Bangladesh[edit]

I don't know if you want to look at it, but the discussion has continued on the Talk page of the article on Bangladesh regarding the phrase "Middle Age". There is nothing more I can say. The other editors are convinced that "Middle Age" is appropriate as a heading to refer to a middle period in the history of Bangladesh.CorinneSD (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I understand your frustration. I presume they want it to go with their other headings, Ancient age and Modern age. Rothorpe (talk) 00:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Mumbai[edit]

Would you mind looking at the latest edit to the article on Mumbai? There has been some back-and-forth over which name to put -- Mumbai or Bombay -- but an editor named Ugog-something wrote a fairly decent compromise sentence, something like "also known by its former name, Bombay". Then an editor with no Talk page removed that comma before "Bombay" with an edit summary saying it was an incorrect use of a comma. I thought that comma was all right. What do you think?CorinneSD (talk) 00:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

It was correct, but I agree with removing it because it's not absolutely necessary, and there is another comma immediately after 'Bombay', and two commas would make it look too much like a parenthesis. Rothorpe(talk) 00:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you. I had only looked at it in edit mode, and did not see the following comma. I was also reacting to the edit summary saying it was incorrect. Thank you.CorinneSD (talk) 00:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
De nada! Rothorpe (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Antonio José de Sucre[edit]

If you have time, would you review the recent changes to the article on Antonio José de Sucre? I think an editor who may be a non-native speaker responded to the invitation at the beginning of the article to add material translated from Spanish sources. Besides some problems with syntax and word choice, I am unable to judge whether there are enough appropriate sources for the added material and whether they are properly added (I see "cita"). If the editor made good-faith edits that add correct, sourced information, I don't think he/she should be alienated from editing with a wholesale revert with no, or a curt, edit summary, but I need help judging and fixing the problems (or advice on what to say if all is to be reverted).CorinneSD (talk) 00:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The article is tagged at the top as unreferenced, and there is indeed only one ref in it. So this is just more of the same. It doesn't really make much sense to revert just the new stuff. If you feel like improving the English, that's up to you. But the anonymous editor isn't for discussing. Rothorpe(talk) 01:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Capitalization in Robert Quine article[edit]

Hi,

Rather than engaging in an edit war, I think we'd better sort the matter out by talking. You pointed me to the appropriate manual of style page; but, if you read the second bullet underCapitalization, it reads:

The first letter in the first and last words in English song, album and other titles is capitalized.

If we consider that band names are part of those other titles, all those instances of The are the first word of the bands' names; so according to this guideline, they must be capitalized.

We can also go to this other guideline which may apply better to our case (band names would fall under official names (for example, names of corporations and other entities)); all the examples in this guideline capitalize the initial Thewhen it is part of the name. We can check the appropriate articles in the Wikipedia to see that their titles are indeed United Kingdom, The Lord of the Rings, Odyssey and The Hague. So I think my reversal was correct for The Velvet Underground, The Black Keys and The Voidoids (though in Richard Hell and the Voidoids the word the is in the middle of the name and thus not capitalized, if we use just The Voidoids the situation changes).--Gorpik (talk) 08:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

'Other titles' doesn't refer to band names, but to titles of other kinds of artwork, e.g. paintings, novels. I'm sorry to find that misleading; perhaps it should be removed as irrelevant. So: the United Kingdom (though The Hague is an exception, as mentioned), The Odyssey, The Lord of the Rings (names of artworks), the Beatles, the Band, the Who---but The Beatles is the name of the (white) album, and the name of the WP article. Titles at the top of articles have the capital, just as a capital letter begins a sentence (The Beatles were...). Hope that's clear; if not, I'll be happy to discuss it further. Regards,Rothorpe (talk) 15:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I agree that Other titles does not apply to band names (I was just trying to use the link you provided). But I still think that official names (for example, names of corporations and other entities) applies here perfectly. Notice that, according to the WP article, it is not The Odyssey, but justOdyssey, and the example in the guideline agrees with that, considering the Odyssey correct. As I said, according to the WP articles, the names of all those bands include the word The, so it should be capitalised, just as it is in The Hague or The Lord of the Rings. There are even cases of bands whose names only differ in the article (e.g.: The Outlawsand Outlaws) or bands that removed the article to change their names for legal reasons (Madness became The Madness for a short time when a few band members quit).--Gorpik (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
There was a great deal of dscussion about this, and the outcome was the MoS as you see it now. The convention is to include 'the' where necessary (as indeed in the case of the Outlaws) but not to capitalise it in running prose, because the convention in respected publications is overwhelmingly not to do so. Yes, I made a mistake with the Odyssey - well, it's a confusing area!Rothorpe (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
If that was the final agreement, I have nothing else to say. And it is a confusing area indeed: even if the full name of the book is The Lord of the Rings, its usual initialism is just LOTR. Go figure!--Gorpik (talk) 16:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Cinnamon[edit]

In the middle of the "History" section in the article on Cinnamon is the following sentence:

"Pliny gives a fascinating account of the early spice trade across the Red Sea in "rafts without sails or oars", obviously using the trade winds, that costs Rome 100 million sesterces each year."

I understand that "gives" is in present tense because present tense is usually used to discuss literature (or history in this case), but does it follow that "costs" must also be in present tense? I know that normally tenses need to be consistent within a sentence, but this is history, not literature, and the cost to Rome was a cost 2,000 years ago. Shouldn't it be in past tense – cost? Also, that parenthetical phrase beginning with "obviously" kind of breaks up the flow of the sentence, doesn't it?CorinneSD (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, my reaction was exactly the same. Rothorpe (talk) 01:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
What do you think of it now? I changed "costs" to "cost" and modified the parenthetical phrase. I also removed a "clarification needed" tag after "rafts without sails". I think the info about the trade winds probably came from the same source as the rest of the sentence. Do you think further clarification is needed there? If so, I'll put the "clarification needed" tag back.CorinneSD (talk) 15:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
No, no need, you've done an excellent job there. Rothorpe(talk) 15:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks!CorinneSD (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Hinduism[edit]

I just saw a group of edits to Hinduism in which an editor changed a lot of spellings (looks like mainly from British English spelling to American) with an edit summary saying "fixing edit errors" or something like that. Before I revert with an edit summary saying "See WP:ENGVAR", do you want to check that they should all go back to the way they were?CorinneSD (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll let other people argue about -ise or -ize, but 'denisen' is wrong.Rothorpe (talk) 02:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Anne Caulfield, Lady Charlemont[edit]

I am puzzled about something. I was looking for information on epinoia. Apparently, there is no article on it, but there is a list. The first item on the list is Anne Caulfield, Lady Charlemont. I clicked on that, and saw in the first line of the article "Anne Caulfeild, or Caulfield". First of all, I think if the article is titled "Caulfield", the first spelling should be "Caulfield" and the alternate spelling listed second. But besides that, I noticed in the second line of the article that she married a Francis Caulfeild (ei). Then I decided to put in "Caulfield" in the search box and it showed quite a few Caulfields (ie). In the first group, the third and fourth ones refer to a Castle Caulfield in Ireland. So, I wonder why the titled family in Ireland would spell their name Caulfeild while the name of the castle is Caulfield. It's all very puzzling.CorinneSD (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

It reminds me of two towns in Kent, Tonbridge and Tunbridge Wells. So not puzzling at all! But what is epinoia? Does it have a paragram? Certainly I agree about the order of the spellings. Rothorpe (talk) 02:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
The original author changed the opening sentence from IE to EI on 28 Dec 2011, while it was still in user space. Perhaps EI is the more common spelling, and the article should really be moved. Of course spelling was less standardizsed in those days. But the other members of the family seem to be EI.Rothorpe (talk) 02:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. Which is the better approach, to change the heading of the article on Anne Caulfeild to EI, with an edit summary, or to suggest the change on the Talk page of the article? Also, if it is changed, I think the title of the article on her husband Francis would have to be changed. And what about the names of the two "castles" on the disambiguation page?CorinneSD (talk) 02:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm still trying to figure out what epinoia is. I read it in a book, The Secret Gospel of Thomas by Elaine Pagels, where she calls it the luminous epinoia. I have a vague idea, but it is really still very vague.CorinneSD (talk) 02:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot to attend to this, having read it yesterday. Yes, I'd raise it on the talk page. Best of luck with the elusive epinoia.Rothorpe (talk) 03:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Excuse: I have found [1] agreeably distracting.Rothorpe (talk) 03:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)---Works in Google Chrome, but gives only a description in Internet Explorer.
Yes. It is mesmerizing. Is that a graphic representation of all the articles on Wikipedia?CorinneSD (talk) 16:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
That's right. And you can have a number of different languages, though there's no Portuguese for some reason. Rothorpe (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Peter Warlock[edit]

Would you mind looking at the latest edit to Peter Warlock? Besides removing a misspelled word ("during"), this editor changed "intermission" to "interval" (of a concert) with an edit summary saying British English ought to be used. Now, I can go along with changing the variety of English used in an article about an Englishman to British English, but I just want to ask about that word, "interval". In American English, the word "interval" is simply not used to describe the break in the middle of a concert or show. "Intermission" is used. Is "intermission" not used at all in British English? Americans will be puzzled at coming across "the interval of a concert".CorinneSD (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not ambiguous, though, is it? 'Intermission' sounds like something on television! I think the more learning that people do about varieties, the better.Rothorpe (talk) 21:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)---It was a reversion of the previous edit, by the way.

Base metal[edit]

Would you mind looking at the latest edit to Base metal? Just a sentence was added about Zamak. I have two questions: 1) is "depreciated" the right word? Shouldn't it be "deprecated"? and 2) is this addition sufficiently sourced? I don't see a source. Should it remain, or be undone, or have a "citation needed" tag added? CorinneSD (talk) 16:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the word needs changing and a cite tag needs to be added.Rothorpe (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Robey[edit]

Greetings, and warmest thanks for all your fixes on Sir George. The "Marriage breakdown and foreign success" section downwards is nowhere near finished so I wouldn't spend too much time on this as it is likely to change. Hope you well!CassiantoTalk 16:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I've just finished anyway, no problem. Rothorpe(talk) 16:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thomas Hardy[edit]

Do you agree with the recent edits to Thomas Hardy? The last edit puts the final quotation marks outside of the period. The ones just before that by the same editor added several commas. I don't think a comma is necessary before "Max Gate" (the name of Hardy's house), do you? The other two were added after initial prepositional phrases. Do you invariably use a comma after an initial prepositional phrase? I use a comma only sometimes, when it is necessary for clarity. What do you think of each of these edits? CorinneSD(talk) 23:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Very much a matter of taste. I like logical, so would not have moved the quotation marks without evidence. I like the comma before 'Max Gate' as it creates a parenthesis. I agree in principal about the initial prepositional phrases, and would probably have included them there. But I'll leave it up to you. Rothorpe (talk) 00:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
The only one I really don't like is the comma before "Max Gate". I don't think it necessary to parenthesize a name like that, especially a short one. I don't think it is worth arguing over the ones that are a matter of taste. But changing the final quotation marks around a short phrase at the end of the sentence so that they are outside the period is changing from British to English style (and, as you would say, from logical to non-logical), and isn't that discouraged on WP?CorinneSD (talk) 15:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
No, it's not necessary, and I see there's a comma-parenthesis immediately after it. But keep the logic, yes! Rothorpe (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Burma[edit]

What do you think of the latest edits to Burma? It seems a little odd first to talk about what Burma is known as in three languages, then to switch to what Burma is known as in a country (Portugal). And what about the edit right before that, changing countries to languages? O.K.? CorinneSD(talk) 23:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

They should all be languages, that's the usual way. Rothorpe(talk) 00:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I changed "Portugal" and "France" to the languages. I wasn't sure whether I could change "the Government of Brazil" to the language (Portuguese) because there is a reference, so I left it. Then I noticed that in the last three paragraphs of the section, the name of the country, whether Burma or Myanmar, is variously in quotes or is italicized. It goes back and forth. Should there be consistency? Should they all be in quotes, or all italicized? Or is it all right they way it is now?CorinneSD (talk) 16:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I think italics are inappropriate for that kind of thing, words as words, though I seem to be becoming inured to it. When I read the MoS on italics a while back, the advice was to be sparing of them. So... Rothorpe(talk) 19:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
However, WP:ITAL, 'use italics when mentioning words as words', and, come to think of it, it saves space. Rothorpe (talk) 22:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughts. I want to ask you what you think a bit more: Burma and Myanmar are not just "words". They are alternate names of a country, accepted and used in English. I think there are three basic groups of words that ought normally to be italicized: foreign words, certain scientific names (mostly in botany and zoology), and words the writer wants to emphasize. Unless the writer is making a special point about the name of a particular country, I think the country name should not be in italics. Do you think that, in this section of the article, the various names of Burma (Burma, Myanmar, and the names in other languages) count as a member of the third category, words that a writer wants to emphasize? Or are Burma and Myanmar in a separate category from the words in other languages (Birmania, etc.). Perhaps "Burma" and "Myanmar" should be in quotation marks and the names of the country in other languages (Birmania, etc.) in italics. What do you think?CorinneSD (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
No, I don't think there's any emphasis or categorising. They should either all be in inverted commas (my usual practice) or italics (words as words).Rothorpe (talk) 23:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Hippocrates[edit]

What do you think of the latest edit to Hippocrates and the edit summary? I know you disapprove of unnecessary capital letters, but in this case I wonder. I've seen "Ancient Greece" everywhere, many times. Is the editor right? –CorinneSD (talk) 16:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I suspect not. But the thing to do is to click on the link and see how the article itself does it. Rothorpe (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
And we're wrong! Rothorpe (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I clicked on "ancient Greece" in the caption and read the first part of the article entitled Ancient Greece. Is this what you looked at? I see "ancient Greece" once near the beginning of the article, but I don't really understand why "ancient" is not capitalized. It is described as a specific period extending from the 6th century B.C. to around 600 A.D., and all the other periods mentioned (and there are quite a few) have each word capitalized.CorinneSD(talk) 22:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Try following the link to History of citizenship. 'Ancient' is all over the place, uncapitalised. Rothorpe (talk) 23:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
See also Ancient world. Rothorpe (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

David Lloyd George[edit]

An editor, Rjensen, made several sets of edits to David Lloyd George. They are all quite good and I even complimented him/her on them on his/her Talk page. Then he/she made two more edits, one changing a hyphen to an en-dash and the other to a sentence in the lead. It is that sentence that I want to ask you about. I was about to leave a comment on his/her Talk page with my suggestions, but then I realized that I wasn't sure about one of them, so I want to ask you what you think. Here is the sentence:

"He made a greater impact on British public life than arguably any other 20th-century leader, thanks to his leadership in winning the war, his postwar role in reshaping Europe and giving independence to Ireland, and his prewar introduction of Britain's social welfare system."

1) My first suggestion is to change "in winning the war" to "during the war". I think the fact that the war was won is discussed elsewhere in the article and that the emphasis should be on his leadership.

2) I am less sure about my second suggestion. There is something about "his postwar role in reshaping Europe and giving independence to Ireland" that doesn't sound right to me. I was thinking it might sound better as, "his postwar role in the reshaping of Europe and the granting of independence to Ireland". I know this version has more words, though.

3) Third, I noticed that the three phrases are not in chronological order. They are now "war", "postwar", and "prewar". Chronological would be "prewar", "war", and "postwar". I know there may be other reasons for the order in which they are now, such as most important first, then next-most-important, and finally least important.

I value your opinion on these three items. If you think the sentence is all right the way it is, I'll defer to your judgment.CorinneSD (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if it makes you feel you've wasted your time, but I think the sentence is fine. Probably arranged in order of importance, yes. I think 'winning the war' says it all about his leadership. Rothorpe (talk) 23:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
No. That's fine. Thank you.CorinneSD (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Tea[edit]

I have asked User talk:Hzh on his/her Talk page about the wording of a sentence in Tea. He/she responded by saying that I can revise the sentence any way I wish. Before I do anything I wanted to ask you what you thought. I have never heard that words are "borrowed into" another language. I've done a lot of reading in linguistics and never saw this, but I thought, maybe it is correct and I've never happened to hear or read it. What do you think?CorinneSD (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I've come across it before. It's just 'was borrowed from X and Y and put into Z' with the middle bit omitted. Quite elegant, actually. That's not to say you can't edit it if you find it unclear, of course. Rothorpe(talk) 21:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

2013 JX28[edit]

recently, I made an article on 2013 JX28 but it hadn't been reviewed yet. A few minutes after creating it, you made a few edits but hadn't reviewed it officially. I think you threw the 'review article' off or something, or it was a bug, because now my article is waiting to be reviewed by a nonexistent person, who will most likely never review it.

I don't know exactly what to do here, but could you try to review my article to see if it's even possible? Otherwise, I have another, slightly more drastic approach.

Thanks for your help. :) exoplanetaryscience (talk) 14:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, dear, I am sorry. I don't know anything about the review business. I do pending changes, has it anything to do with that? How can I help?Rothorpe (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, first of all. A review is just checking a recently-created page for accuracy and just general edits on the article. I bet there's some process to what to do if this kind of thing happens, but I don't know it. So far, my best hope is for you to review the page. If that doesn't work, I was considering deleting and then re-creating the article. Either way, it was an honest mistake and I'm not giving you any blame for it.exoplanetaryscience (talk) 17:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
P.S. if I find any protocol or information on this sort of thing, I'll mention it here.
You mean the first person who edits a new article after its creator is supposed to be a reviewer? I've been here since 2008 and have never noticed that. If you want, I can mention my approval on the talk page. Rothorpe(talk) 18:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the process is, actually, but in the 5-10 articles I've made, it always says "[article name] was reviewed by [user]" on my notifications, and before that happens, a Wikipedia search yields nothing unless the direct name is typed, and people who aren't logged in won't be able to see the article (confirmed on my dad's ipad). I'm not sure exactly how any of this works, but I'm pretty sure it needs some moderator approval before a new page is added to the wiki. Any information you can find on this would be useful, as my search has yielded next to nothing. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 18:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I can't remember how I came across it; I suppose it must have been a rare visit to Recent changes. All this is new to me, and perhaps it's just new; it's a long time since I created an article. Anyway, I think it's time for one of these:
check-mark
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.
Please see the above conversation. In short, 2013 JX28 needs a reviewer.
Maybe that'll do the trick. Rothorpe (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Now I've put some astronomy-project stuff on the talk page---maybe that'll do it. Rothorpe (talk) 18:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I've taken a look at the article; it's now considered "reviewed". The search index, however, is not updated instantaneously, and its updates are unrelated to reviews. Huon (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Rothorpe (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Hypnosis[edit]

Would you mind taking a look at the latest edit to Hypnosis in which an editor changed "Hynosis has been defined as" to "Hypnosis is defined as". Normally, I like the direct "is", but in this case I think "has been defined" might be better because of the sentence immediately following the reference. I think it is sort of like, "Many people define hypnosis as..., but more recent research has shown that...". Which do you think is better here: "is" or "has been"?CorinneSD (talk) 21:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I had no hestitation in changing it back! Rothorpe (talk) 22:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
O.K. Thanks. I think I'm sometimes too timid. I'm afraid someone will get upset.CorinneSD (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. As the poet said, The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.Rothorpe (talk) 23:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

A question about commas[edit]

Would you mind looking at a reply by User talk:Tom Reedy to a query from another editor about an example of an instance of when a comma is not needed? Tom Reedy provides two quotes as examples. The comment is perfectly well written, but I am puzzled about the second example (the second quote). I don't understand why a second comma is not necessary after the parenthetical phrase. Isn't "17th Earl of Oxford" an appositive (with or without the dates)? The last thing I want to do is embarrass anyone (least of all myself), but I want to learn.CorinneSD (talk) 02:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a puzzling comment. I think he means that you don't need a comma after the bracket. But a post-parenthetical comma would be needed without the bracket, so what does he mean by 'If ... does not need a comma without the parenthetical material...'? Reading you again, it seems we are saying the same thing. His distinction, parenthetical/appositive, seems to be a false one. As to whether to put the comma or not, a matter of style? I think I sometimes do, sometimes don't. Sorry to be so vague, but if there's a rule, I don't know it. I daresay some would call it an Am/Br thing, sparing commas v. loadsa commas.Rothorpe (talk) 03:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Wow. If it's an Am/Br thing, it's new to me. I thought the second comma was necessary after an appositive, regardless of whether a parenthetical phrase appears before that second comma or not. Hmm.CorinneSD (talk) 01:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I was talking about the difference between ) and ), whether to leave out a normal comma because the bracket renders it unnecesary.Rothorpe (talk) 01:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Just read your latest exchange on his page, and I see I was as confused as he says he was! Yes, I like the comma after the bracket/parenthesis.Rothorpe (talk) 02:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Language isolate[edit]

What do you think of the latest edit to Language isolate? An editor changed "While" to "Although". I thought "While" was all right there. "Although" works, also, but what's wrong with "While"? Sometimes, "although" is a bit tendentious (is that the right word? I mean "heavy"). No, it's not the right word. I mean ponderous. Which do you prefer? CorinneSD (talk) 01:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree, it's a bit ponderous. Rothorpe (talk) 01:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

David Lloyd George[edit]

You may be interested in an on-going discussion about some recent edits toDavid Lloyd George between Inglok and myself at User talk:Inglok. I'm learning something new every day...CorinneSD (talk) 02:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for alerting me, it's very interesting. Rothorpe(talk) 02:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
The American president, Barack Obama, met the British prime minister, David Cameron. President Obama met Mr. Cameron. (Prime Minister Cameron I would regard as unnecessary, unencyclopedic and journalistic titling.) Do you agree with my usage there? I doubt Inglok would. Rothorpe (talk) 02:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Of course I agree with your wording here, but did you look at all the instances in which Inglok added "the" throughout the article, about four or five edits back? That's what I wrote to him/her about on his/her Talk page. Perhaps you would say that without "the", it is "journalistic" (perhaps has become more common in U.S. usage than in British usage). Maybe my example about President John Smith was not a good example or perhaps became a distraction from the real issue.
I really do not understand the difference between an office and a title. How can "Attorney-General" be an office and not a title? (By the way, in the U.S. it is not hyphenated, but that is beside the point here.) In the U.S. it is both an office and a title. The Attorney General holds the office of Attorney General. When it says, "Attorney-General Rufus Isaacs", isn't "Attorney-General" a title (not in the sense of "Duke", "Earl", "Count" but in the modern political sense)?
I also have never seen nor heard the phrase "a restricted appositive". Have you? What is it?
(Inglok seems pretty sure of himself/herself, and I am surprised to be considered so wrong about grammar and style.)CorinneSD (talk) 02:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
You may wish to read the exchange in the section headed "MOS Comma" at User talk:Tom Reedy.CorinneSD (talk) 03:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it is annoying when an editor changes a perfectly correct usage to another perfectly correct usage that is not one's own, and that seems to be what has happened here. The attorney general, X, and Attorney-General X (or sans hyphen) illustrates the difference between office and title, though of course they are the same existentially. 'The AG' is a restrictive appositive there, I suppose---I'm trying to get used to the term 'appositive'.Rothorpe (talk) 19:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Textile[edit]

If you have time, could you look at the latest edits to Textile? An editor made some changes to the "Etymology" section, adding some words ("adjective" and "verb") that I don't think were necessary and removing a word "Meanwhile" which I thought was a nice transitional word indicating a change to a discussion of the etymology of "fabric". What do you think?CorinneSD (talk) 03:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the first edit is mainly to unrepeat 'textilis', though, no, I wouldn't have bothered to add the extra parts of speech. I suppose 'meanwhile' was removed because there was also an 'also'. Rothorpe (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, now I see that textilis had been there twice, and once is enough. Regarding the removal of "meanwhile", I think if all transitional words and adverbs are removed, the writing becomes dry. I don't think "meanwhile" and "also" are synonyms, so both can be used. The information about "fabric" following "meanwhile" is not really necessary in an article on "textile". It is an additional interesting bit of information. Hence, "meanwhile". Another adverb might be, "Interestingly, 'fabric' also comes from Latin....", and another transitional phrase might be, "Also deriving from Latin is the word 'fabric',..." But I don't see anything wrong with "Meanwhile". But to convince another editor is another thing.CorinneSD (talk) 01:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Unlike 'meanwhile', 'interestingly' would violate the neutral point of view rule. I can see why you like 'meanwhile', but although 'also' isn't synonymous, it performs the same contrasting job. Matter of taste, I think. 'Also deriving...' points up the contrast, and is nice. I suppose there's a reason for the inclusion of 'fabric' and 'cloth' here (I can't be bothered to read the whole article). Rothorpe (talk) 01:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)